[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6739-6741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-2727]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-461]


Illinois Power Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 
Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
NPF-62, issued to the Illinois Power Company (the licensee), for 
operation of the Clinton Power Station, Unit 1, located in DeWitt 
County, Illinois.
    The proposed amendment would modify the Technical Specifications 
(TSs) to eliminate selected response time testing requirements. The 
affected TSs are TS 3.3.1.1, ``Reactor Protection System (RPS) 
Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.5.1, ``Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) 
Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.6.1, ``Primary Containment and Drywell 
Isolation Instrumentation,'' and TS 3.5.1, ``ECCS--Operating.''
    The proposed changes are supported by analyses performed by the 
Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group (BWROG) in their topical report, 
NEDO-32291, ``System Analyses for Elimination of Selected Response Time 
Testing Requirements,'' submitted on January 14, 1994. NEDO-32291 
demonstrated that other periodic tests required by TSs, such as channel 
calibrations, channel checks, channel functional tests, and logic 
system functional tests, in conjunction with the actions taken in 
response to NRC Bulletin 90-01, ``Loss of Fill-Oil in Transmitters 
Manufactured by Rosemount,'' and Supplement 1, are adequate to ensure 
that instrument response times are within acceptable limits.
    The staff has reviewed NEDO-32291 and, by letter dated December 28, 
1994 (B. Boger to R. Pinelli), issued its Safety Evaluation. Based on a 
review of the information presented by the BWROG, the staff concluded 
that significant degradation of instrument response times, i.e., delays 
greater than about 5 seconds, can be detected during the performance of 
other surveillance tests, principally calibration, if properly 
performed. Accordingly, the staff concluded response time testing can 
be eliminated from TSs for the selected instrumentation identified in 
the topical report and accepted NEO-32291 for reference in license 
amendment applications for all boiling water reactors provided that 
certain conditions are met. These conditions were specified in the 
staff's letter to the BWROG dated December 28, 1994.
    In a letter dated January 27, 1995, the licensee submitted an 
application to amend their technical specifications based on the BWROG 
topical report. In their submittal, the licensee confirmed the 
applicability of the generic analysis of NEDO-32291 to their plant, and 
provided the supplemental information demonstrating compliance with the 
conditions specified in the staff's Safety Evaluation. In addition, the 
licensee identified their submittal as a cost beneficial licensing 
action (CBLA) and requested prompt approval by the staff so that they 
could implement the changes prior to their refueling outage scheduled 
for March 1995.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the 
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of 
the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of Safety. As 
required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of 
the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below:

    (1) The purpose of the proposed Technical Specification (TS) 
change is to eliminate response time testing requirements for 
selected components in the Reactor Protection System (RPS), 
Containment and Reactor Vessel Isolation Control System (CRVICS) 
instrumentation, and Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) actuation 
instrumentation. The Boiling Water Reactor Owners' Group (BWROG) has 
completed an evaluation which demonstrates that response time 
testing is redundant to the other TS-required testing. These other 
tests, in conjunction with actions take in response to NRC Bulletin 
90--01, ``Loss of Fill-Oil in Transmitters Manufactured by 
Rosemount,'' and Supplement 1, are sufficient to identify failure 
modes or degradations in instrument response time and ensure 
operation of the associated systems within acceptable limits.There 
are no known failure modes that can be detected by response time 
testing that cannot also be detected by the other TS-required 
testing. This evaluation was documented in NEDO-32291, ``System 
Analyses for Elimination of Selected Response Time Testing 
Requirements,'' January 1994. Illinois Power (IP) has confirmed the 
applicability of this evaluation to Clinton Power Station (CPS). In 
addition, IP will complete the actions identified in the NRC staff's 
safety evaluation of NEDO-32291.
    Because of the continued application of other existing TS-
required tests such as channel calibrations, channel checks, channel 
functional tests, and logic system functional tests, the response 
time of these systems will be maintained within the acceptance 
limits assumed in plant safety analyses and required for successful 
mitigation of an initiating event. The proposed changes do not 
affect the capability of the associated systems to perform their 
intended function within their required response time, nor do the 
proposed changes themselves affect the operation of any equipment. 
As a result, IP has concluded that [[Page 6740]] the proposed 
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    (2) The proposed changes only apply to the testing requirements 
for the components identified above and do not result in any 
physical change to these or other components or their operation. As 
a result, no new failure modes are introduced. Therefore, the 
proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    (3) The current TS-required response times are based on the 
maximum allowable values assumed in the plant safety analyses. These 
analyses conservatively establish the margin of safety. As described 
above, the proposed changes do not affect the capability of the 
associated systems to perform their intended function within the 
allowed response time used as the basis for the plant safety 
analyses. The potential failure modes for the components within the 
scope of this request were evaluated for impact on instrument 
response time. This evaluation confirmed that, with the exception of 
loss of fill-oil of Rosemount transmitters, the remaining TS-
required testing is sufficient to identify failure modes or 
degradations in instrument response times and ensure operation of 
the instrumentation within the scope of this request is within 
acceptable limits. The actions taken in response to NRC Bulletin 90-
01 and Supplement 1 are adequate to identify loss of fill-oil 
failures of Rosemount transmitters. As a result, it has been 
concluded that plant and system response to an initiating event will 
remain in compliance with the assumptions of the safety analyses.
    Further, although not explicitly evaluated, the proposed changes 
will provide an improvement to plant safety and operation by 
reducing the time safety systems are unavailable, reducing the 
potential for safety system actuations, reducing plant shutdown 
risk, limiting radiation exposure to plant personnel, and 
eliminating the diversion of key personnel resources to conduct 
unnecessary testing. Therefore, IP has concluded that this request 
will result in an overall increase in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances 
change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely 
way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, 
the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of 
the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that 
the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The result 
determination will consider all public and State comments received. 
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the Federal 
Register a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing 
after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this 
action will occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Rules Review and 
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications 
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page 
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be 
delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. 
Copies of written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public 
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By March 6, 1995, the licensee may file a request for a hearing 
with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility 
operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding 
must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene 
shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice 
for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested 
persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is 
available at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public 
document room located at the Vespasian Warner Public Library, 120 West 
Johnson Street, Clinton, Illinois 61727. If a request for a hearing or 
petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the 
Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designed by the 
Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary of 
the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of 
hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following factors: (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the 
Act to be made party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of 
the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the 
proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be 
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition 
should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of 
the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person 
who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been 
admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of 
the Board up to 15 days prior to the first perhearing conference 
scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy 
the specificity requirements described above.
    Not later that 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 
scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to 
the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions 
which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must 
consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be 
raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a 
brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise 
statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the 
contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the 
contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references 
to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is 
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those 
facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information 
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or a material 
issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within 
the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be 
one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A 
petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these 
requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be 
permitted to participate as a party. [[Page 6741]] 
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-
examine witnesses.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
    If the final determination is that the amendment request involves 
no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment.
    If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a 
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place 
before the issuance of any amendment.
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Services 
Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, 
the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by the above 
date. Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of the notice 
period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the 
Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-(800) 
248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator 
should be given Datagram identification Number N1023 and the following 
message addressed to Leif J. Norrholm, Project Director, Project 
Directorate III-3, petitioner's name and telephone number, date 
petition was mailed, plant name, and publication date and page number 
of this Federal Register notice. A copy of the petition should also be 
sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to Leah Manning Stetener, Vice 
President, General Counsel, and Corporate Secretary, 500 South 27th 
Street, Decatur, Illinois 62525, attorney for the licensee.
    Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended 
petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the 
petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the 
factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1) (i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated January 27, 1995, which is available 
for public inspection the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public 
document room located at the Vespasian Warner Public Library, 120 West 
Johnson Street, Clinton, Illinois 61727.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of January, 1995

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Douglas V. Pickett,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate III-3, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations.
[FR Doc. 95-2727 Filed 2-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M